Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
Freek Dijkstra <debian_public@macfreek.nl> writes:
> OpenSSL does give that permission:
> http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 (last paragraph of
> answer)
The OpenSSL license requires an ad for Eric Young on all software
using it. The GPL conflicts with that requirement.
> Netatalk is willing to give it, but can not:
> It is practically unrealistic to ask every possible contributor (including
> samba and libiconv contributors) to make this exception to the GPL licence.
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=890674&group_id=864
> 2&atid=358642
Well, then what you're really saying is that the Samba and Libiconv
folks have offered their software under the GPL, and won't give
permission for the OpenSSL exception. So this isn't just a failing of
licenses; it's a legitimate disagreement between some copyright holders.
> It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
> co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
Yes -- the rest of the copyright holders. Bug the Samba/libiconv
folks if you like, but I suggest you blame Eric Young. He could make
this issue go away by behaving in a less unmutual manner.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: